Mountains of rock become grains of sand to be once again welded as rock. The cycle is both perpetual and necessary. Likewise ideas must be broken down periodically into their fundamental elements to be reassembled as sound pillars of guidance and virtue. The cycle of men is like that of sand.

Monday, January 31, 2005

It might take as many as 10 days to determine the results of Iraq's election Sunday. Will Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani prove the favorite, or will Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's slate prevail? A little more time will tell. History will unfold with more, where a comprehensive notion of victory will ultimately be defined. But, it is clear who is the big loser today. The Western Liberal Press and its related pundits and fringe radicals who positioned themselves with endless stories, broadcasts, interviews and protests against democracy and in favor of a brutal 'insurgency.'

In the wake of the elections, Roger L. Simon calls for an end to the deceptive semantics that represent "...a conscious/unconscious attempt to cloak a rag-tag amalgamation of fascists, jihadists and common criminals in the romantic mantle of Pancho Villa." I whole-heartedly agree. Perhaps it is time that the Old Busted Media finally acknowledge their position on the wrong side of history before floating off into a sea of permanent irrelevancy. In addition, they might stop the endless denigration of the Coalition's efforts and President Bush's intentions. They might stop saying 'I support the troops' and actually support the effort to which those troops are devoted with their volition and their lives. Might we at last acknowledge that Oil is not the treasure of endeavor in Iraq?... that blood is being spilled in small yet precious part to keep it from flowing in gallons like paint for a surrealist's history of terrorist oppression?

The reality of Media Bias is there for introspection, would that they choose to acknowledge it. (Hat Tip Glenn Reynolds)

Did we win? To that question, Belmont Club provides the most appropriate answer: "And did we win? Who knows? But many Iraqis think they did." Indeed they did. Yesterday was a great day for Iraq and for Western Civilization. It was sorely needed. And if the Old Busted Media maintain their tenor, it will certainly be shortlived.

The Headline of this morning's Portland Oregonian reads, "We Broke a Barrier of Fear!" Sally Buzbee banners her lead story with that quote from one election official, Mijm Towirish, recognizing the spirit and bravery of his people and their overwhelming desire for liberty. Yet even as the paper tries to link itself to this historic event, and before she even gets to the quote, Buzbee cannot resist casting the paper's typical shadow of doubt on the entire endeavor.

"But some polling stations in the minority Sunni heartland appeared largely deserted or didn't open at all. A low Sunni turnout could undermine the credibility of the new leadership to emerge from the vote." She goes on after to report, "... But for the country's minority Sunni Arabs, who held a privileged position under Saddam Hussein, the day was not as welcome. No more than 400 people voted in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. In the heavily Sunni northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah, where Saddam made his last known public appearance in early April 2003, the four polling places never opened.

In other words,despite the 'voice of freedom' emanating from the Middle East, Theres' hope yet, seems to be the thinking of Buzbee and her colleagues. Make no mistake. The free people of Iraq 'broke a barrier' yesterday. They transcended the fear of condescension and ridicule by voting abroad. And they penetrated the fear of murder by voting at home in Iraq. That barrier of fear was created by thugs and butchers opposed to liberty, sadly aided in no small part by publications like the Oregonian. So, before you folks over in the press room go patting yourselves on the back, take a good long look at Iraqis' inky fickle fingerof perseverance. (HT. Instapundit) Its being flipped at you.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Over at RadioBlogger, Duane has posted excerpts of Bill Clinton on stage with Charlie Rose, in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday. This is Bill Clinton doing his finest Baron Von Munchausen impersonation to be certain - riding cannonballs, travelling to the Moon, pulling himself out of a bog by his own hair, manhandling Vladimir Putin, toking and jawing with the Dali Llama. Others have compared him to Uncle Rico from Napolean Dynamite, and I can certainly see the similarity, although BIll seems a bit more like the Hercules doll on a string relative to the current administration. Old Peachy comes to mind as well, rambling about The Man Who Would Be King. Either way, Clinton comes across as a delusional neurotic searching desperately through the fantasy of recollection for the figment of a legacy... and still coming up short. Trapped inside the whale of regret at his squandered moment in history, Baron Bill might find a pinch of penitence to be most efficacious.

I met Bill Gates today. He's donating money to the tsunami relief fund. I tried to get him to donate some money to my AIDS project, but I caught him at the wrong moment. There seems to be something wrong with Microsoft. Just before I talked to him, he had been grilled by journalists. I don't know much about computers, but it had something to do with leaks in Internet Explorer and viruses. What I gathered from the questions is that Microsoft is losing its dominance, that rivals have products, which don't attract viruses. If I was a betting man, I would start short selling Microsoft shares.

Watch out Cramer, he's gunning for your job next. Unfortunately there are no comments or trackbacks. So Blogroll him.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Again I find myself extracted from hybernation to the soap box of my blog. Hewitt's pulling the whiskers of kittens again, and the mayhem is irresistable. For his latest Vox Blogoli, Hugh links to the excerpt of an article from The Atlantic written by Jonathan Rauch concerning the current state of political division in America.

The most notable passage from the piece is as follows:

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

Let it be known that the initial response to this passage evolved in absence of the context of the entire copywrited article. Nevertheless, much can be understood about the writing and editing by elements of the passage itself. Like a reference to native americans as vicious redskin savages or african american men as sub-human, referring to Christians as insurgents in the context of the 4th year of the 21st Century given the nature of current events would seem similarly as derogatory in both its intention and its comprehension. Furthermore, to suggest in the next sentence that indeed Christian Conservatives would be inclined to the violence of terrorists underscores the author's previous assumptions about their sensibility. Mr Rauch goes on to ostensibly make a parallel assessment of Secular Liberals and further exposes his prejudice as we are left with two prominent defining principles by which two describe the 'bipolar' extremes of American Democracy.

Conservatives: Operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside by bombing abortion clinics

Liberals: Clashed over civil rights when they were locked out of their own party establishment and had to fight, literally, to be heard.

Yesterday on his show, Hugh interviewed Mr. Rauch allowing him opportunity to clarify and discuss his viewpoint, both as held and as expressed in the article. Self-proclaimed moderate that he purported to be (and we'll give the lean benefit of heavy doubt for the sake of this point) Mr. Rauch, at the time, evaded ownership of the seed of his prose more ardently than Peter's trifecta denial of his controversial aquaintance. The blogosphere's roosters crowed! If you write it, Sir, own it. If you believe it, defend it. If you can't defend what you have written, abdicate the position. But, don't add furher insult to ad hominem by denying meaning and inferring misrepresentation by lack of context. Granted insult is taken not offered. But, bigotry is in fact sown before it is harvested. The article is spreading seed while yoddleing moderation, despite Mr. Rauches apparent backpeddling.

Mr. Rauch expects the reader to acknowledge the Left's Gentleman's Agreementwhere concepts implied do not actually exists if not expressly admitted. With regard to Christians today, Moderates and Liberals alike feign public tolerance for a disagreeable 'sensibility,' while privately and in the company of like-minded 'gentlefolk' express their open prejudice, bias, suspicion, disrespect, and outright disgust. I witness this on a daily basis in email and in conversation working in one of the most hardcore Leftist cities in the nation. Derision is offered as a procondition in various aspects of normal conversation. In some cases - notably in the realm of tight email circles - the hatred is veritable and blatant. But for most, like Rauch I expect, it isn't that they even acknowledge the reality of their own bigotry. As with the latent animosity of bygone eras toward 'indians,' Irish, blacks or jews, this new animosity is perceived as both imperative and acceptable, even as the insidious nature of the subliminal hatred may likewise turn violent and deadly. When caught in the open, gentlefolk defer to polite evasion and the expectation of honor for 'the agreement.' One might expect them to say something along the lines of, "... some of my best friends are Christian Conservatives." In his case, Rauch does this by insisting that we acknowledge the context in order to ascertain his actual point. Well, today we do just that as he has afforded a broader review of his article titled, "State of the Union: Bipolar Disorder."

Upon further reading one is introduced to an assessment of the nation's current political divide... a football with a fat moderate middle tapered to two pointy fringes. This observation is illustrated in a lengthy yet superficial analysis of its cosmopolitan fabric over the metaphysical condition of the nation's current existence. It is a conjectural observation regarding its politics while ignoring it's collective soul. The Left continually grapples in this fashion trying to define and modify what We are. The Right, on the other hand is intently focused on establishing what We should be. The nature of the debate surrounds the concepts that are imperative to the survival of the principles about which we are united. The principles are a set of idealistic concepts that are fundamental to our civilization. A philosophy if you will is supported by its concepts as established by its precepts. These precepts, we call 'values.' In order to determine the quality of a particular philosophy, one need look no further than its concepts and how they rest (if at all) on the premise of its values. Mr. Raunch's observations are expressly vacant of any such investigations. There is little context to his point at all if one is trying to understand the nature of the ideological debate influencing the moderate middle, except to offer his own strident definitions of the bipolar extremes as mentioned before, based on inherent prejudice, and by which he chooses position:

From this, others should choose appropriately. What Mr. Rauch ignores is the true nature of that choice, both for him and the rest in that fat moderate middle.

For the sake of argument, one may agree that both polical extremes value freedom as a concept. But what are the precepts of freedom... the values that make it not merely possible, but actually legitimate. Answer: Life! Freedom in life and to live as one chooses is irrelevant without acknowledging existence first, and the primacy of life as a corollary. As political issues, the value of life is fundamental to discussions of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and even environmental policy. The acknowledgement of existence is fundamental to Rational philosophies and Judeo-Christian dogma. The Left, for the most part, as Rauch acknowledges, embraces relativism and existentialism, both of which begin by questioning existence.

What then is Freedom? The Left embraces the notion of collective freedom. The Right maintains freedom at the individual level. Freedom can not, however, by its nature be both collective and individual. Collective freedom is qualified by the subjective notion of fairness. Sacrifice is necessary in part for the health of the body. Individual freedom is defined by the objective quality of rational self-interest. It can be balanced with a sense of genuine compassion. But compassion cannot be obligated in order for freedom to be maintained as a concept. Freedom is the capacity to exercise choice in accordance with one's own interests. Therefore collective freedom with its subjective preconditions inhibiting choice is neither rational nor possible. If one is being compelled, free will ceases to exist. This particular debate is politically significant in the context of taxation, social security, healthcare, and even environmental policy. Mr.Rauch like others must choose between justice and fairness as manifested accordingly in the realm of politics. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of individual freedom. Interactions among parties are conducted as transactions exchanging goods and services... the products of one's being for those of another in accordance with needs or desires. In order for this to take place, ownership must be acknowledged. The objective value of property is the means by which man sustains existence in a rational universe where consumption and production are prerequisites to the maintenance of existence. Collectivism on the other hand negates property rights and subjugates the thoughts and efforts of one to the needs of the many, again according to a subjective notion of fairness. As previously noted, the political extremes in America are polarized according to these opposing concepts in terms of taxation, corporations, litigation, globalization, the second amendment and even environmental policy.Mr. Rauch does touch on one fundamental issue to the Republic when he probes the subject of representation, for which he clearly has passion, noteing that, "... the practice of gerrymandering congressional districts to entrench partisans (and thus extremists) is a scandal, far more insulting to popular sovereignty than anything to do with campaign finance." He quickly, and in true moderate fashion, pulls away from that subject, however, proclaiming ".. that is not the note I wish to end on." Far be it from discussing principle for a note on which to end a tune about political division, despite its relevant congruity. Afterall, the character of a polarized Republic ought to be accurately reflected in its representation. And the two most notable gerrymandering debates at present involve in the first case, districts that are changed by legislators to conform to the latest Census data (Texas); and the second case, districts modified by judges to achieve and abstract notion of ' fairness' (California). One is left to wonder which case has infuriated Mr. Rauch. The curiosity is short-lived, however, as Mr. Rauch chooses the subject on which to end his investigation. In the matter of fundamental ideological issues, in his view, the "Republican Party has acquired its distinctively tart right-wing flavor largely because it has absorbed, in fact, to a significant extent has organizationally merged with the religious right." Note that they (Christains and Conservatives) could not possible share a set of fundamental values; values that are profoundly absent or diametrically opposed on the Left. The gentlefolk do not acknowledge the possibility, nor should propriety lend itself to inquiry about such things. Better rest the analysis - according to the prejudicial sensibilities of Mr. Rauch and his editors, co-workers, and compatriots - on dimishing one side of the political discourse to the inhuman level of barbarian butchers... thus leaving the impression for others to complete as a conclusion.By the adopted standards of your unspoken agreements, Mr. Rauch, I proudly acknowledge, I am no Gentleman.

UPDATE:01.26.05:21:02Over at Both Worlds, Gary entertains the idea that Jonathon Rauch actually believes that political extremists should be embraced by their respective parties. He makes some good points. But, I tend to think Mr. Rauch was being overtly provocative when linking politically active Christians, and fringe zealots. Note, that the problem with the contemporary Democrat Party is that they have embraced their most dangerous and irrational fringe Left 60's elements. They have appropriatly been marginalized as a political force. Republicans and Christians alike have uniformly condemned the actions of its violent fringe and rejected them completely as the criminal enemies of civilization that they are. If indeed what Rauch is suggesting is that all extremes must be afforded legitimacy in public discourse, then he is even more absurd than I had suggested. The current dilemma of Islam is that they are unable to differentiate the legitimate body from its insane fringe. This will only serve to ensure its ultimate demise as the conflict between Men and monsters requires the supremacy of Man. Rational discourse must remain rational in order to maintain legitimacy. And any group that, by its nature, embraces violence and compulsion, regardless of its affiliations, has no place in the company of free Men. UPDATE:01.27.05:05:51More good insight at Evangelical Outpost, Carol Platt Liebau, Kowabunga, Molten Thought (great last line), The Usual Suspects, Psuedo-Polymath (EXACTLY!), and many more.

Friday, January 07, 2005

It worked in one Washington, why NOT the other. Several Democrat Legislators have officially challenged the election results from the State of Ohio. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) are the most notable Congressional figures contesting the Constitutionally mandated certification of the 2004 Presidential election. President Bush captured re-election with 51% of the nation's popular vote to Kerry's 48%, supported by 286 Electoral votes; including Ohio's 20 that are at issue with some fringe Left individuals and organizations. Bush took Ohio by 50.96% to Kerry's 48.57%, with a margin of victory of some 118,000 votes (election results provided by from Real Clear Politics).

Since November 3rd groups like the Anarchist organization known as Indymedia, and neo-Marxist, Anti-American groups like ANSWER have spearheaded a campaign to reap what they have sown... chaos. This fringe effort to subvert the nation's free election system, heretofore abhorent to Democrat and Republican citizens alike, has been afforded virtual legitimacy by recognition of California's junior Senator. Nevermind Conyers whose lunacy and corruption is well documented, and the insignificant Jones. Boxer, certain never to be recognized by history's annals of notable American Statesman (or women if she prefer to fail there too), will however provide high-profile flame to fuse for the scandal-monger partisans of the Old Busted Media sure to let it blow sky high. Like the IED's of mideast fascist butchers, Boxer's devices will not further her cause nor that of her anarchist fan club. It will, in fact, destroy what little respect and legacy she still maintains by virtue of being associated with one of the most significant bodies of free goverance in human history. Yet, she along with her colleagues in the House, will likewise inflict collateral damage on that institution and further undermine the strength and integrity of the foundations of the Republic. Her dubious allies get the added benefit of gaining one step closer to their blatant goal of statist transformation.

Were that Boxer were addressing a legitimate concern involving election malfeasance to which we all are in tune, one might appreciate her tenor - even while ridiculing her reverential absurdity. In fact, there are very serious concerns across America about the delegitimizing of U.S. elections by deliberate and often institutionalized corruption. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Boxer ignors all of them in favor of curiousities in the one State that 'officially' decided the election by a profound numerical margin relative to other swing States. Wisconsin for instance recorded a victory in favor of Kerry by 13,646 votes (49.79% to 49.33%). Boxer is not concerned with it, ostensibly because the outcome favored her party. Likewise States like New Hampshire (50.36% to 48.98%, 9309 vote margin), Minnesota(51.07% to 47.62%, 97,512 vote margin) and even Oregon (51.25% to 47.32%, 67,495 vote margin) all had tight margins closer than Ohio, yet favored the Democrat Candidate. Michigan was similar to Ohio (51.10% to 47.94%, 151,891 vote margin), yet maintained a lead for Kerry. On those instances, Mrs. Boxer is conveniently silent. Then there is the State of Washington where the margins in the Presidential race were acceptable to the Left, yet yielded a narrow victory for the Republican Gubernatorial Candidate, Dino Rossi. Subsequent recounts maintained the victory until a final recount including 'new' ballots shifted a razor victory in favor of the Democrat Candidate. The recounts suddenly ended as did Democrat curiosity in the matter, and that election was quickly certified in their favor. Mrs. Boxer never mentioned it, even as further investigation is yielding a strong trail of corruption in the form of ballot stuffing on the part of Democrats. Clearly her selective concern is equally suspicious.Senator Boxer argued for 'electoral justice' in her opposition Thursday, stating that the government must guarantee that every 'registered' voter participating in an election counts and should be counted. And yet 'registered' voters are being systematically disenfranchised by the non-registered, illegitimate, illegal, and undocumented, votes that Democrat lawyers litigate into the results. In Washington State and elsewhere, from the local to federal election, the will of the people is actually being subverted by thousands of unaccountable ballots that have been injected by judicial mandate into tallys that have altered the results; thereby nullifying all the voters in that particular election, regardless of their preference or party. In Washington State alone, Millions of voters have been disenfranchised by a few hundred mystery votes that overturned the election. The people did not choose their governor. The manufacturer of those particular Democrat ballots did. For Boxer and her associates, those are the votes that 'count.' Sadly for them, they simply couldn't manufacture enough to disenfranchise Ohio voters and likewise the nation as a whole.

Trimmed to the kook fringe, The Democrat party has abandoned the American base in favor of a quasi-European world body intent on dissolving American influence from a globalized civilization crystallizing around the fuedal principles of collective subjugation. They call it 'democratization' with a perverse connotation of a universal equality of outcome that can only be maintained through strict uniformity and compulsion. Senator Clinton, yesterday, went so far as to refer to voters as 'peasants' on the floor of the Senate, implying that she was their feudal Lord to be headed without question. What arrogance must exist within the ranks of the modern incarnation of the Democrat Party to believe that after 229 years, Americans will gladly return to living 'by the leave' of another institution of annointed masters... the Left's aristocracy of benevolent ignorance. But that would appear to be the goal of the Party as they imbrace yet another effort to undermine the will, power and sovereignty of individual Americans; the voters.Boxer's presence in American history may be brief. Her career has been anything but notable. For the present, she remains a fixture for the likes of her Congressional nobility and their fringe Left legion to tune the powerful force of California's influence. But, that connection is weaker today, as Republicans and Democrats alike are witness to the motives and agenda of a body of representation that promises to disenfranchise the nation as a whole from its proud heritage, its history, and its legacy. And as infuriating as her parading stupidity may have been, Boxer's Folly ensures the reign of progressive condescension will likewise be just as brief.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Duane over at RadioBlogger is currently running a banner competition flogging Hugh Hewitt's latest book, Blog. (See our previous flog) So here is my 2 or 3 cent contribution as I wait patiently for Amazon to forward my copy this automatic bestseller.

Lileks should love this adaptation of some rare Chris Ware material from an early graphic novel, Floyd Farland: Citizen of the Future. I apparently went to school with Chris at the University of Texas in the late 80's where this epic novel graced the funny pages of the Daily Texan before emerging as a compilation and novel shortly thereafter. I have been told that I posess one of the few remaining copies. But this post is not about Mr. Ware's books, but rather that of Mr. Hewitt, who we affectionately refer to here as 'The Hammer' for his Thor-like propensity for bludgeoning the Left with logic, reason, intelligence and thoughtful passion - all of which seem to be in moratorium from their sensibilities these days. In absense of Sandmen feedback, review the reviews. Then, get it read it, share it... and do it. Read Blog! Feel Blog! Do Blog! Be Blog!

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Even Clark County Washington has been found to have more ballots than voters in the State's recent election. Like King, Snohomish, Kitsap, Pierce and an increasing number of others, a review of the numbers shows that more ballots were counted than number of actual voters participating in 2004. In King County alone so far, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that its tally of votes counted exceeded the number of people listed as voting by 3,539. Sound Politics has been unearthing this story faster than it can be buried revealing some very interesting revelations regarding King County and Precint 1823. For those unfamiliar with the local geography of the Pacific Northwest, King and Snohomish Counties constitute the Democrat stronghold of Seattle. Clark County contains the city of Vancouver along the southern border. It is essentially the twin city of the neo-marxist stronghold of Portland, Oregon where malfeasance is not merely expected, but tutored and celebrated by the fringe Left.

The Seattle Times today provides insight into the methodology of recent elections fraud.

An unknown number of provisional voters, some of whom may not even have been registered to vote, improperly put their ballots directly into vote-counting machines at polling places, King County's elections superintendent said yesterday.

Once those ballots went into the machines, there was no way to separate them from legitimate ballots.

The Times story outlines a process that is curious in the least and spurious to be sure. The issue of the State's Governor's race provides a unique opportunity for a dissection of the processes that have been developed to ensure election outcomes in places where the estate of political power is more important than the virtues of the Republic. Do let's hope the investigation spreads and dare to thank the Washington Democrat Party while we're at it for the invitation of their lust, so consuming that it breaches even the appearance of common sense as the Times story goes on to document with some very odd statements on the part of the county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens:

'Officials may never know exactly how many provisional ballots were improperly fed into voting machines...'

"What part of it was it?" Huennekens said. "I don't know. Did it happen? Yes. Unfortunately, that's part of the process in King County, where we have over 2,600 precincts and over 540 polling locations and nearly 4,000 workers. It's a very human process, and in some cases that did happen...."

"We have very, very loose standards and procedures," he said. "I don't think our system in this state takes fraud and accuracy seriously...."

"I can't completely fault our poll workers 100 percent in this matter, especially when you're dealing with over 300,000 voters at the polls. People come in all kinds of varieties and shapes and sizes," Huennekens said...

He said there was no evidence of voter fraud.

"I don't think our system in this state takes fraud and accuracy seriously." Obviously not. Mr. Huennekens, what is election fraud if not ballot stuffing?... more votes than voters? What more evidence do you need? If fraud were bigfoot, Mr. Huennekens, his hairy butt would be sitting on your face... irrational, conspiratorial, and disinformed claims like those of Indymedia, notwithstanding. As it is, it clearly seems, the Left has more presumption of kin, than they have actual kind, even in its blue 'strongholds'. And try as they might to steal this particular election, a body that abandons the virtues of its very existence for its fix of power is one that invites disease and is surely dying. We welcome its passing and shall not mourn its absense from this free Republic.